[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I have made my case. I have demonstrated that evolution is a falsehood....

So you're gonna stop now? Please?

[Rumor]

I demonstrated that evolution is not falsehood, which you decided to ignore.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No, it really doesn't. As I said, you're uneducated on your own science. If you took a course on physical anthropology you'd learn a whole lot about what evolutionists truly believe, and they most definitely do not believe apes are the transitional form to humans. As I said before, they claim that we and apes had a common ancestors.

Well, I suppose it depends on the precise meaning we're assigning to "ape." I think most people would consider A. afarensis an ape. All biologists consider it a transitional form (which is what you asked for).

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You're a fool. Errors in genetic code don't produce new information, they damage the original code.

Big Mac, what are you talking about? There are well-known examples of mutations that introduce new abilities. Several have been mentioned in this thread. Are you just ignoring these, or have I misunderstood you?

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Do you know anything about the sheer complexity of genetic coding? If you did, you would know that it would take an unbelievably huge number of precise errors in code (a contradiction in terms) to produce the kinds of differing functionality found between the species.

Why would they have to be precise? You can produce millions of them a minute. If you break a few eggs, that's fine. The majority of mutations do not kill the individual — they're usually neutral. Otherwise we'd all be dead, because almost all of us have some mutated DNA (that is, new mutations introduced when we were first created by our parents).

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

What you and the other gullible sheep of our species have been duped to believe is that there's any plausibility to that model of change. It would be like believing that errors in computer code could somehow write completely new, functional routines and algorithms given enough time. Corruption in computer code produces dysfunction, just like it does in the genetic code most all of the time.

Comparing machine code to the substances that make up our DNA is deceptive. They don't work the same way at all. Machine code is a specific language that's run through a processor specially designed to execute it; DNA is not. Machine code is not capable of recombining and bonding with other machine code and still producing something meaningful; DNA is.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But evolution hangs its hat on gradualism, which means there should be all kinds of transitional forms in fossil form and in living species. There most definitely are not, and this was such a significant problem to evolutionists that one of their leaders, Gould, came up with a contradictory model that still does not satisfactorily account for species development. Gould came up with punctuated equilibrium based on what the fossil record indicates - that most all species pop up suddenly with no preceding forms to be found. One of the courses I took focused on punctuated equilibrium for a considerable amount of time, yet the course never provided a scientific explanation for how punctuated equilibrium evolution could possibly work. The most they could say is that something in the environment causes sudden change.

Have you read up on Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium? I assume it would have come up in such a course. It seems to me that's what you're looking for.

[amazing]

Here's one way to change the debate a bit: A glossy, sophisticated Islamic creationist book has been put out.

Islamic creationist and a book sent round the world - International Herald Tribune

The arguments sound just as bizarre as many put forth here, but perhaps you'll "hear" the laughable reasoning if you see it in the light of another religion's convoluted reasoning.

Science says the earth is old. No doubt about that, is there? Science says that old things have lots of time to evolve, for whatever reasons, climate, disasters, whatever. You gotta agree on that, because it's been happening in recorded history. So, no doubt about that, right? Peoples have changed, died out, species have changed, died out, all within recorded history.

That's all science says, that's evolution in the smallest of nutshells.

There's still room for beliefs outside that framework. No doubt about that either. Things happen that no one can explain, always have, always will.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Well, I suppose it depends on the precise meaning we're assigning to "ape." I think most people would consider A. afarensis an ape. All biologists consider it a transitional form (which is what you asked for).

Yeah, well, when Uncle says Apes are the living breathing transitional forms, he's not talking about A. Afarensis. He's mistakenly taking about the apes he visits in zoos. As for the claims of hominid evolution, that discourse will have to wait for another day, but here's my condensed view: what evolutionists claim are hominid predecessors to humans are merely branches of the ape family that died off, not humanity's ancestors. And aside from that, even if you want to assume that they count as human ancestors (rather than the apes they clearly were), there are so many conflicting branches, dead ends and contradictions in that record that no one claims there is any coherent model of evolution to be produced from it.

Big Mac, what are you talking about? There are well-known examples of mutations that introduce new abilities. Several have been mentioned in this thread. Are you just ignoring these, or have I misunderstood you?

There are well known examples of mutations within a species. As I said in multiple posts (and you apparently failed to read each time), a) most true mutations that have any affect are kinds of deleterious mutations found here and here, the leading cause of death; b) the rare ones that are beneficial confirm microevolution but not macroevolution/speciation. Mutations have never been shown to produce novel species, no matter how much you wish them to.

Why would they have to be precise? You can produce millions of them a minute. If you break a few eggs, that's fine. The majority of mutations do not kill the individual — they're usually neutral. Otherwise we'd all be dead, because almost all of us have some mutated DNA (that is, new mutations introduced when we were first created by our parents).

You're a nice guy, Chuckit, but you're still very much wrong. Either you do not understand the scientific definition of mutation, or you do not understand the sheer complexity of the genetic code of even the simplest organisms. I'm going to assume you don't understand the meaning of the term mutation because recombinant DNA in normal sexual reproduction does not count as a form of mutation. As for true mutations:

"The overwhelming majority of mutations have no significant effect, since DNA repair is able to mend most changes before they become permanent mutations, and many organisms have mechanisms for eliminating otherwise permanently mutated somatic cells. . . . A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect."(Wikipedia)

"The overwhelming majority of mutations are assumed to be at least almost neutral" (Nature.com)

If the overwhelming majority of mutations are assumed by science to be at least almost neutral, then how can you tell me that mutation is responsible for the planet's bio-diversity? It is an illogical contention, Chuckit, which is one reason Darwinian Evolution has been debunked. Meanwhile, punctuated equilibrium evolution explicitly rejects gradual mutation as the catalyst of evolution but offers no alternative catalyst to account for change. (See below)

Comparing machine code to the substances that make up our DNA is deceptive. They don't work the same way at all. Machine code is a specific language that's run through a processor specially designed to execute it; DNA is not. Machine code is not capable of recombining and bonding with other machine code and still producing something meaningful; DNA is.

As I said, recombinant DNA isn't considered a mutation. Mutations are produced by inadvertent duplication or subtraction of genetic code. Both machine code and genetic code use precise coding in order to "run" properly, and genetic code is far more complex than machine code. Enduring mutations in biology most always are deleterious, which is not exactly the same but similar to the way corruption of machine code is always deleterious. My analogy is very viable in my opinion.

Have you read up on Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium? I assume it would have come up in such a course. It seems to me that's what you're looking for.

Yes, I have read up on it, Chuckit. Hardy-Weinberg does not offer the explanation I'm asking for, as you suggest. To the contrary, it actually supports my contention because that model accounts for no change in the genetic code of a given population. Here's a quotation for you:
"Evolution involves changes in the gene pool. A population in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium shows no change. What the law tells us is that populations are able to maintain a reservoir of variability so that if future conditions require it, the gene pool can change. If recessive alleles were continually tending to disappear, the population would soon become homozygous. Under Hardy-Weinberg conditions, genes that have no present selective value will nonetheless be retained."

Hardy-Weinberg helps my argument, so thank you for bringing it up. Evolutionists who recognize Hardy-Weinberg have to look for ways in which it can fail. The first model they usually bring up is mutation, which we covered. The others, such as gene flow, genetic drift and random mating patterns all speak to microevolution but not macroevolution. You're out of gas.

And for the individual who continues to point to that HIV mutation, that is one of a small number of novel exception to the rule that mutation, if enduring, is deleterious. But once again, it speaks to microevolution, not macroevolution. And just so that people cannot stupidly claim they caught me in an inconsistency, I have always stated that microevolution is real. But when you talk about Evolution, you're most always talking about macroevolution, and that is what I have taken pains to demonstrate to you is false and debunked.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by amazing 

Here's one way to change the debate a bit: A glossy, sophisticated Islamic creationist book has been put out.

Yes, as an Abrahamic faith, Islam too holds to a creationist model. No surprise there, amazing.

The arguments sound just as bizarre as many put forth here, but perhaps you'll "hear" the laughable reasoning if you see it in the light of another religion's convoluted reasoning.

Ad hominem. I guess you don't want to debate the arguments themselves so you resort to fallacy.

Peoples have changed, died out, species have changed, died out, all within recorded history.

If that's the only assertion you're making, then you're not really defending macroevolution. The debate I'm in is with those who believe in macroevolution, either that species change into other species through gradual mutations over huge time spans (Darwinian Evolution, the model most people here support) or that new species spring up suddenly with no natural predecessors and no explanation (punctuated equilibrium, which is closer to the evidence and closer to the truth but still based on a faulty premise). I have shown both models to be absurdly untenable.

"If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one... Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe."
-Professor deDuve, Nobel Laureate Organic Chemist, from Tour of a Living Cell

"Life is simply too complex to be assembled on any believable time scale... evolution's uncanny ability to find the short cuts across the multidimensional hyperspace of biological reality. It is my suspicion that research might reveal a deeper fabric to biology..."
-Simon Morris, University of Cambridge Professor, from Life's Solutions

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No, it really doesn't. As I said, you're uneducated on your own science. If you took a course on physical anthropology you'd learn a whole lot about what evolutionists truly believe, and they most definitely do not believe apes are the transitional form to humans. As I said before, they claim that we and apes had a common ancestor. You keep repeating the same ignorant claims.

I never said that humans are the descendants of modern apes. I gave you an example of something that satisfied your conditions:

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You apparently don't know the term as it's used in the evolutionary context. A transitional form is one that has traits of more than one species, which would provide proof of an evolutionary link between said species.

Do you stand by that definition, or was it a mistake? If the latter, what is your definition of a "transitional form?" Is it some circular logic like "a transitional form is something which doesn't exist" so that you can say "evolution depends on something that by definition doesn't exist?"

You're a fool.

Ad homs weaken your credibility

Errors in genetic code don't produce new information, they damage the original code.

Except in cases where they are neutral, or beneficial, which you've conceded.

Every individual is different. Do each of the changes in each person constitute "damage?" On average there are roughly 100 spontaneous point mutations each time a child is conceived. Do you really think of this as 100 "errors" in each child?

Even if you do see the human race as deteriorating steadily at 100 errors per person, how can you call those mutations anything other than new information? They're clearly new, so you must not consider them "information." So how do you differentiate "information" base pairs from the others? If God put them there they're information, otherwise they're not? In that case, you're using your conclusion (God) as evidence of your conclusion (more circular logic).

Furthermore, it would be stupid of you to claim that spontaneous random mutations cannot improve the function of gene products over the "original code," because this idea has been disproven in the lab:
Scientists evolved a new protein from scratch. By a process of random mutation they developed a novel protein that outperforms anything found in nature.

(And even in the very rare cases where the mutations are beneficial, the changes to the code are tiny, certainly far from enough to produce novel species.)

How, you ask, could tiny differences ever make the difference between two species? Well, humans and chimps only differ in 2% of our respective genomes, which is about 120 million bases. At 100 spontaneous mutations per person per generation, and 1 generation in 20 years, and a million people at any one time, after 5 million years we could make that change with only 1 mutation in 500,000 being beneficial. Doesn't sound too unbelievable after all.

How rare do you think beneficial mutations are, Big Mac? Why don't you flex that education you keep claiming to have and give a guess. And please back it up with something more convincing than incredulity.

And while you deride the critiques by evolutionists of the fossil record found in those quotations, what those quotations are speaking of is not just the paucity of transitional forms in the fossil record but also the immediate appearance of forms in the record without any preceding transitional forms to be found.

Again, the absence of evidence is not itself evidence.
The fossil record is incomplete. Fossils are not guaranteed from each environment. How many people are alive today, and how many of us have been fossilized in the history of mankind? Not many, and not a representative sampling. There could be millions of a species around evolving for centuries before we get a good fossil of it.
Then just because it was fossilized doesn't mean we'll find it. Otherwise, we would have found all the fossils long ago, and new fossils wouldn't still be being discovered every year.
In case you missed it the first two times, the absence of evidence is not itself evidence. Otherwise "intelligent design" would be disproven instantly simply because there is no evidence of an intelligent designer (yet).

I doubt you even bothered reading that post because it's too much to bother you with facts from your own scientists.

Well, you're wrong, I read them all. Maybe if you stopped wasting your time on ad homs you wouldn't be wrong so often.

But Darwinian evolution hangs its hat on gradualism, which means there should be all kinds of transitional forms in fossil form and in living species.

That statement is illogical. There is absolutely no reason to expect to see transitional forms (whatever definition you're using at the moment) still alive today. Do you need the model-T analogy again? Maybe you didn't get it because you don't know what a model-T is...? Just ask if you're having trouble keeping up; I can spell things out for you.

No hypothesis about what that environmental factor could be.

Any extinction of any species changes the environment of the species which either eat it or are eaten by it. Do you believe in extinction?

How about a parasite? HIV and the Plague changed the environment for humans leading to that CCR5 adaptation. Do you believe in parasites appearing suddenly?

How about meteor impacts, do you believe in them?

Honestly I'm having a hard time imagining how you thought that changing environmental factors might be something that had to be explained to you. It's unusual for an environment to go through 1000 years without changing.

No hypothesis to account for why we've never seen punctuated equilibrium with human eyes.

Sure we have. Dogs have changed far more before human eyes than the changes we see between different fossil "species" (species of fossils are defined pretty arbitrarily).

And that, my friends, is truly The End.

Are you being a drama queen? Well congratulations your majesty, I hope you're satisfying your need to draw attention to yourself.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

you do not understand the sheer complexity of the genetic code of even the simplest organisms.

I don't know what you're referring to, and I wish you would elaborate. The genetic code is simple. There are 64 possible codons, and 20 amino acids. About half the codons have a "wobble base" at the end, meaning the last of the 3 bases doesn't matter much, if at all. It's not complex.

If by "genetic code" you don't actually mean "genetic code," maybe you mean the way genes are organized with operons, promoters and repressors, but that's not complex either. The genes simply have non-coding parts in front of them that are recognized by proteins floating past, which either stick to them or don't. Still not complex.

If you're not even talking about genetics but how proteins interact with each other (the "proteome"), that's complex, but it's not fragile. Proteins can go through surprising alterations and still retain their original activities. That's how molecular biology has been as successful as it has, existing proteins can be heavily modified to do things we want them to do like glow green under florescent light, or be activated by one protein's ligand but have the activity of another protein. None of that would work in the laboratory if protein functions weren't as resilient to sequence changes as they are.

So please, tell us what you mean by the "sheer complexity of the genetic code."

If the overwhelming majority of mutations are assumed by science to be at least almost neutral, then how can you tell me that mutation is responsible for the planet's bio-diversity?

Because there are 100 mutations with every reproduction, and hundreds of millions of reproductions every hour?

Both machine code and genetic code use precise coding in order to "run" properly

Machine code has to serve the user, and whether it "works" is defined as whether the user sees what he expected to see beforehand. Genetic code doesn't have a user, it only has to serve itself. The ways it could run "properly" are almost infinite. The ways it could run "improperly" are far more, but the "proper" possibilities for genetics are far more numerous than the "proper" possibilities for machines.

If you want to make a machine analogy, the user must have no preconception of the output. If you had a program that generated artwork and gave its source code a series of random mutations, the art produced would no longer be as originally intended, but it eventually would produce something which the user found unexpectedly pleasing. That is more analagous to genetics. If you're assuming that humans have evolved to match a preconceived intent, then your original computer analogy would be accurate, but then you would be using circular logic to support the existence of that intent in the first place.

But when you talk about Evolution, you're most always talking about macroevolution, and that is what I have taken pains to demonstrate to you is false and debunked.

What happens when a species has microevolution 120 million times? When do you cross over into macroevolution, under your definition?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It would be like believing that errors in computer code could somehow write completely new, functional routines and algorithms given enough time. Corruption in computer code produces dysfunction, just like it does in the genetic code most all of the time.

Get A-Life: Core Wars / Tierra

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Are these the same "evolutionists" who think evolution means a sheep giving birth to a badger? Seriously, I am perplexed as to where you're getting this stuff. You seem like a smart enough guy…

Well, that's ONE theory that has been utterly disproved today.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Rumor has given a comprehensive list.

Yes, that's why I thanked him for it. The list also begs more questions. In haste, I'm thinking one thing about transmission and trying to ask another. I should've asked about HIV variables and Delta variables. I'm aware of the fallacy in urban myths regarding HIV transmission and I'm aware that HIV is transmitted through blood. (i.e. I realize there are many who believe it can be contracted through saliva, etc..., but I am not one of them. Having an uncle-in-law with HIV who visits frequently, I'd be a paranoid mess if I did)

In short, I meant to ask if it was possible for a host with both copies of Delta-32 to become infected.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

I agree about the science not proving/disproving God thing, but there is no reason to suggest that certain mechanics of the universe need a God to help them along, so it can be reasonably suggested that they work just fine without one.

I'll use an analogy to show you what I mean

The theory that when a cue ball is struck it will travel along the pool table works without the need to have invisible pixies pushing it along...

But that's exactly the question: A ball that is hit by another object travels ideally in a vaccuum with no gravitation indefinitely. It's because it has gained a certain energy, which it will not let go due to the absence of resistance of any sorts.

Does it explain the phenomenon? No, it merely states as law how this universe behaves, it doesn't explain it. Actually it was Galileo who found empirically that the less friction there is the longer a ball rolls along, until Galilieo made the theoretical conclusion, that without any friction, the ball would go on indefinitely at a constant speed.
Newton used that observation and idea to create bigger explanation models, and within these that observation and idea serves as the first law of motion.

It's a foundation upon a theory can be built, but the law itself is not explainable.

But it functions, because that's how the world works, it chimes with reality, but it doesn't explain why that is so.

For me it's clear that God is the willing power that let's the universe work according to the laws we humans can decipher, and without God everything would come to a stand and stop to function and exist.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The Catholic church has long accepted evolution. Actually this pope's administration, or rather, people close to him, have made statements less accepting of evolution than those before him. Modern creationism is largely a Protestant American phenomenon.

So European Christians don't believe God created us?

Evolution is about man's evolvement over time. Not really were he came from. The Bible and evolution really don't contradict each other.

I think most Christians accept that man has evolved. Even American Christians. We just believe we know how the "Big Bang" was started, and by whom.

I always always taught the "7 days of creation" story too. But I was also told that each day was a metaphor.

[- - e r i k - -]

For most, faith can happily be adapted around the latest scientific advances. They just apply the necessary mental acrobatics and get on with their lives, putting God in the "unknown" or seemingly "unknown" spaces. I'm perfectly cool with that.

What I don't get though are the literalists, who take pride in putting their faith before empirical facts, logic and theories backed by insurmountable evidence, proudly displaying ignorance as some sort of badge. It's really quite fascinating to see this widespread Don Quixote type behaviour still alive and well among people who are even smart enough to operate computers.

[amazing]

The main thing is that the scientific method HAS to taught in the schools! This is an absolute requirement: Critical thinking has to be taught in schools. It's the foundation of all inquiry.

This is the only way to get those little brains to think and to advance.

What you teach outside of schools, in the privacy of your home, or in your church, is your own business.

[Graviton]

Double bubble.

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

...Does it explain the phenomenon? No, it merely states as law how this universe behaves, it doesn't explain it.....

...It's a foundation upon a theory can be built, but the law itself is not explainable...

But it functions, because that's how the world works, it chimes with reality, but it doesn't explain why that is so....

Unless you assume that all events must be intelligently caused (basically anthropomorphisising everything), then your "why?" question becomes meaningless. You see, you are already implying purpose and intent with the question itself, which naturally leads you to say "God" (or pixies, as in my analogy).

If you ask "Why?" in a different way, In a scientific sense, then you have a natural universe working the way it does, because that's what a universe such as this one happens to do. The "Why?" question could then (theoretically) be answered by our attempts to understand the mechanics and causes of universes, as far as evidence will allow.

For me it's clear that God is the willing power that let's the universe work according to the laws we humans can decipher, and without God everything would come to a stand and stop to function and exist.

Taliesin

So you keep saying, but you have not explained why it is necessary to tag a guiding hand on to observable natural events. You are just stating it as fact, without evidence or reason.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Get A-Life: Core Wars / Tierra

That's awesome

[Dakarʒ]

Very interesting.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes, that's why I thanked him for it. The list also begs more questions. In haste, I'm thinking one thing about transmission and trying to ask another. I should've asked about HIV variables and Delta variables. I'm aware of the fallacy in urban myths regarding HIV transmission and I'm aware that HIV is transmitted through blood. (i.e. I realize there are many who believe it can be contracted through saliva, etc..., but I am not one of them. Having an uncle-in-law with HIV who visits frequently, I'd be a paranoid mess if I did)

In short, I meant to ask if it was possible for a host with both copies of Delta-32 to become infected.

If the particular strand of HIV uses CCR5 as a coreceptor, then it's very unlikely. However, not all strands of HIV use CCR5 as a coreceptor.

Source

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Originally Posted by BRussell

The Catholic church has long accepted evolution. Actually this pope's administration, or rather, people close to him, have made statements less accepting of evolution than those before him. Modern creationism is largely a Protestant American phenomenon.

So European Christians don't believe God created us?

Evolution is about man's evolvement over time. Not really were he came from. The Bible and evolution really don't contradict each other.

I think most Christians accept that man has evolved. Even American Christians. We just believe we know how the "Big Bang" was started, and by whom.

I always always taught the "7 days of creation" story too. But I was also told that each day was a metaphor.

I'm trying, but unable, to parse this post.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

So European Christians don't believe God created us?

That is not what creationism means.

[Rumor]

From the looks of it, Kevin didn't read the thread but decided to chime in anyways.

[Big Mac]

FYI, lest anyone think I have discontinued posting here, my final reply to this thread is coming. It must, however, be delayed until Sunday at the earliest. I trust you'll stay tuned - particularly you, Uncle.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Um, ok that's weird. Anyway, I'll be gone for a week starting tomorrow. I wish you better luck with your next "final" reply than you had with your last one.

[ironknee]

btw did anyone see this flickr set from the creation museum in

Behold the Creation Museum - a photoset on Flickr

facinating to say the least

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

btw did anyone see this flickr set from the creation museum in

Behold the Creation Museum - a photoset on Flickr

facinating to say the least

Creationists believe in speciation!

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

Unless you assume that all events must be intelligently caused (basically anthropomorphisising everything), then your "why?" question becomes meaningless. You see, you are already implying purpose and intent with the question itself, which naturally leads you to say "God" (or pixies, as in my analogy).

If you ask "Why?" in a different way, In a scientific sense, then you have a natural universe working the way it does, because that's what a universe such as this one happens to do. The "Why?" question could then (theoretically) be answered by our attempts to understand the mechanics and causes of universes, as far as evidence will allow.

Science can't answer any why-questions, that's my point. Scientists can describe the universe and find/observe laws and build upon these laws theories that can in ideal situations predict future developments, and explain more complex phenomenons in terms of simpler phenomenons, that's all.

You can of course say, that is already enough. But for me who is interested in origins, in explanations, this is far from enough, and yet per se science is not capable to deliver them, no matter how advanced it might become in millions of years.

Originally Posted by Graviton 

So you keep saying, but you have not explained why it is necessary to tag a guiding hand on to observable natural events. You are just stating it as fact, without evidence or reason.

The movement itself is the evidence. You can say that things move because they move, you can say things exist, because they exist... and you can say that is already enough, for me though it's not.

You want proof for God's existence and willing/enabling/empowering the universe and its laws, there is no watersecure proof, there is only faith.

That faith though gives meaning to the world and foundation to the sciences.

Religions should not try to interfere in science's attempts at observing/finding laws/developing theories/categorizing the universe, and sciences should not try to interfere in religion's attempts at giving meaning and foundation to the universe.

I want also to discuss another point dealing with God and the world:

Erik, for example is a convinced atheist, he is sure, that God doesn't exist, and he really thinks that sciences actually explain things completely, or will one day be able to, but in his generosity he tolerates religious people and allows them to believe in God in areas that sciences have not yet fully explained.

The idea behind that kind of thinking, and I think, you, graviton, can relate to that thinking, too, is that in areas and topics that sciences have built a functioning theory on, there would be no place for God.

That is of course an erroneous idea, in fact in all areas and topics there is a place for God, that is if you want to believe in one, namely as the deity, that has created the area, set the laws, and enables and wills its continued functioning.

But it goes further, you can even believe, that is if you want to, in God, as a diety that can and does intervene at will and short notice in miracle-like forms, every day of the week, and sciences have no methodology to prove or disprove it, since sciences can only deal with reproduceable phenomenons.

More important is though that God, if you believe in one, is untestable, because He sets the playing-field, the laws, is omnipotent and omniscient, lives in all places and times at the same time...

Besson, foranother example, believes in God as an explanation of the universe's existence, but does not believe in a personal God, that is actually listening to prayers and intervening, Einstein thought similarly.

Yet, there is no way to discard the possibility of a personal God, that is directly intervening whenever He wants, since His intervention would not be detectable, if He wanted He could intervene well within the laws He set up for the universe, and noone could make a difference between natural occurence or divine intervention, except for those that actually prayed and received fulfillment of their prayer.

We, as humans can't track down God's actions, since in order to do that we would have to develop a computer that could measure all particles' precise locations and velocity-vectors in the world, and calculate then the future movement of all of these particles, and simulate the future world, let's say in a year, taken for granted that we have a perfect theory, and then compare it in a year with the actual development of the world. Then one could say, look here, this development is differing, that must be a divine interaction, or if there were no differences, then one could say, that there were none interventions whatsoever in that timephase.

But even in that latter scenario, the problem is that God, given His allknowledge at all times and for all time, could have already planned beforehand the intervention by setting everything up to occur without intervening in the system, or He could have decided not to intervene in that year, or He could intervene and change the calculations and measurements in the giant computer in order to give the answer He wants us to get, ie. that nothing extraordinarily happened...

Given the problems we have today to track down God's possible actions, it is even far more difficult to judge God's miracles in presence of His messengers thousands of years ago, from parting the sea to bringing dead people back to life.

In the end it's a faith-question, and neither group, atheists or believers, can and should instrumentalise sciences for their agenda, at least not without looking foolish.

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

I really don't understand how this issue continues to rage on around here . If it were among nubies maybe I'd understand, but this debate is comprised of the same seasoned veterans who've been debating this stuff for years around here. Every now and then something new and interesting comes up regarding evolution and creates a new opportunity to learn something, but too often it ends up;

- debating what an ape is and whether or not we descended from one, evolved from one, or neither with both parties splitting hairs and talking past one another.
- "you don't know what you're talking about.", "No, you don't know what you're talking about."
- Evolution is about origins! No it's not! Here's an article from TalkOrigins...
- Conservatives = Creationism, Liberals = Atheists and Evolution
- "God did it, you are foolish for not seeing that."
- "God didn't do it, you are foolish for believing anything not empirically scientific."
- "God did it initially, then let it devolve."
- "God did it and continues to meddle in it."
- erik chimes in with his vast wealth of expertise like a punk kid behind his older brother; "YEAH what he sed!! Yer an iddyott!! lol"

It seems there is no shortage of experts when it comes to these debates. You'll see an abundance of internet biologists engaged in nothing more than a pissing match of philosophical mumble-jumble. At the end of the day faith is what it is which requires no scientific method. Science is what it is and employs an exhaustive study of the natural in building a method of inquisition and conclusion. Evolution science has the chimeras and piltdown men of its past and faith has some damning errors of falsehoods, ideological suppression, and manipulation in its past. Both will continue to have their fallacies because of the human nature involved in the disciplines.

However, science is a discipline of competing models. An ideal, an hypothesis, a prediction, an experiment, and a conclusion. We have a model of evolution and to date, there is no model that can compete with the theory of evolution. It's as simple as this really. Proponents of ID, Creationism, or simply those who philosophically oppose the TOE will point to "holes" in the theory to affirm their presuppositions, but this is not playing the "science game". To play the "science game", you must propose a competing hypothesis, form predictions, produce methodically-sound experimentation, and conclude on that data. Scientists don't need the help of Creationists or ID proponents to debate aspects of evolution as they sufficiently do so among themselves regardless of what you read in National Geographic. Likewise, pointing to "holes" in one theory does not constitute proof for another. The painful fact of the matter is that ID has enjoyed very little peer review, has very little experimentation behind it (other than a few inconclusive 'knock-out' experiments) and cannot produce an adequate competing model in spite of a wealth of funding and the fact that they've been at this "new" IC development for over a decade.

Big Mac; I admire your tenacity and of course you're welcome to return to this thread and provide your last thoughts on this issue, but understand that each and every point you make can and will be picked apart. There is no "zinger" that will magically close this issue. You cannot produce a competing model because to date, none exist. What exists are a host of websites designed for internet biologists with the sole purpose of debunking your points. When these "moist" sources are exhausted they will provide an array of valuable and credible articles, abstracts, and scientific consensus including affirmed predictions formed from the evolutionary model. Evolution is a complex theory involving many components and as such (just as any complex machinery) there are problems as you know. The fact is these problems are already identified by the scientific community and (whether you read about it in popular press or not) they are every day, actively involved in trying to solve these problems.

There are zealots from both camps and the purpose of one is to draw the other in to a fruitless debate of semantics, ad hom, and philosophical mumble-jumble when in reality there's probably less than 5% who truly know what they're talking about. Look hard for them and you will learn some things that could save you a whole lot of time in the future.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

What I don't get though are the literalists, who take pride in putting their faith before empirical facts, logic and theories backed by insurmountable evidence, proudly displaying ignorance as some sort of badge. It's really quite fascinating to see this widespread Don Quixote type behaviour still alive and well among people who are even smart enough to operate computers.

Lefitsts?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I really don't understand how this issue continues to rage on around here .

Me either, but despite such a great post as yours, I somehow think we're in for another 10-12 pages of same ol' same ol'.

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

The movement itself is the evidence.

No it is not. Its evidence of movement, not evidence of an intelligent agent, for reasons I explained in depth earlier.

You can say that things move because they move, you can say things exist, because they exist... and you can say that is already enough, for me though it's not.

Clearly, but for now that's all we have. That's all we can actually claim.

I would like to know too, the difference is, I will not pretend to know. I wish more people would do that. We see a universe working as a universe does, but that's it. After that we guess, we speculate, we imagine. You imagine a god, that's fine, a lot of people do that, but it's an article of faith, not a necessary thing to explain the origins or mechanics of a universe (hence the need for 'faith'). Universes, as wonderful as they may seem, may be nothing other than the natural events they appear to be.

In all honesty, you believe in a god because that's what you would like to believe. You would like to believe in an intelligent purpose to things like universes. There's nothing wrong with that, I'm all cool and groovy about peoples gods. I'm somewhat agnostic myself. I don't dismiss the idea of a god, I just don't like bad arguments in support of a god. I won't accept them on other peoples 'faith' (which is raw emotion, not reason).

This doesn't mean I wont clasp my hands together when the airplane is going down, but it could also mean I'm just another emotional and frightened ape talking to himself like a crazy person. Regardless of my own personal delusions of self importance.

[Miasis Dragon]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I think most Christians accept that man has evolved. Even American Christians. We just believe we know how the "Big Bang" was started, and by whom.

How do you know that? Who told you? Where did you read it? How did that knowledge originate? Did God speak to you directly? Why you?
why hasn't he spoken to me?

[besson3c]

How do we really know that God or Jesus is a guy? Maybe this part of the bible wasn't meant to be interpreted literally? Maybe Jesus is a chick?

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Miasis Dragon 

How do you know that? Who told you? Where did you read it? How did that knowledge originate? Did God speak to you directly? Why you?
why hasn't he spoken to me?

Saying that the universe "is just there" is, IMHO, not a suitable answer. Saying that something just exists is not a suitable answer in any field of inquiry.

If the universe has existed infinitely, as many scholars argue, then how do we begin to understand the nature of infinity?

And if the universe, according to the Big Bang theory, exploded out of an infinitely small mass, how do we account for that?

This paradox of infinity should be a driving force for scientific inquiry, a source of theological speculation, and a topic for philosophical investigation.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Saying that the universe "is just there" is, IMHO, not a suitable answer. Saying that something just exists is not a suitable answer in any field of inquiry.

If the universe has existed infinitely, as many scholars argue, then how do we begin to understand the nature of infinity?

And if the universe, according to the Big Bang theory, exploded out of an infinitely small mass, how do we account for that?

This paradox of infinity should be a driving force for scientific inquiry, a source of theological speculation, and a topic for philosophical investigation.

Well thought out post.

The answer to your two questions is simply: By admitting "we don't know…yet" we DO have the basis for scientific enquiry. The problem with theological speculation in particular, but it also applies to philosophy, is that most people postulate an unknown (or rather inherit their parent's unknown) and then cling to that theory for the rest of their lives, unchanged by any evidence presented to them. That is the difference between science and faith.

One is progressive, the other regressive (to various degrees).

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I'm trying, but unable, to parse this post.

Try a different browser. Works fine here (and others that responded to it)

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That is not what creationism means.

As far as I was told it had to do with God creating man.

"The belief that God creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born."

"Creationism or creation theology encompasses the belief that human beings, the world and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity. "

Doing a further search on the matter on the net it seems different people have different viewpoints as to what creationism means.

Imagine that.

Originally Posted by Rumor 

From the looks of it, Kevin didn't read the thread but decided to chime in anyways.

Looks like Rumor owes someone an apology, or maybe spoke too soon? But that is ok, I will forgive you anyhow. No hard feelings.

Originally Posted by Miasis Dragon 

How do you know that? Who told you? Where did you read it? How did that knowledge originate? Did God speak to you directly? Why you?
why hasn't he spoken to me?

Read Genesis.

Not that knowing how old the earth is, or where we came from, or having two good shoes is gonna save our souls.

Such arguments, and such are just a distraction from the knowledge that will.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Now if you could show me a dog that gave birth to a badger, I'd become a champion of evolution. Heck, show me a transitional form of some sort. They don't exist.

can you find an example somewhere in the theory of evolution that says this happened, or anything remotely like it.

We have transitional forms for what things came from what.

[- - e r i k - -]

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(i) Evolutionary theory says nothing about the probability of fossilization. The probability of fossilization is investigated by taphonomists and geologists, who have concluded that it usually is very low. We are fortunate to have found fossil representatives of any of the major evolutionary transitions.
(ii) Considering the low probability of fossilization, the number of transitional forms that have been found is remarkable. To say that these fossils fail to establish evolution because there "should be more" would be akin to seeing the angel Gabriel descend from the sky and saying, "Well, that doesn't prove anything! I mean, where's Uriel?"

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

We should see fish with feet, like the little Darwin fish has.

http://toptropicals.com/pics/aqua/fish/muds/mud1_lg.jpg





http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefme...4/T304651A.jpg

edit this ones even better, it is an amphibian, but underneath its amphibian skin are degenerating scales like a fish, of course they serve no purpose. because its just a trait from back when it was a fish. it is what we call a transitional form with traits of both a fish and amphibian.

[- - e r i k - -]

So what? If God wanted to make a fish with feet, he made a fish with feet! *lalalalala*

[lurkalot]

...

[Kevin]

Not that that has to do with anything. I think we all came from the same source just like evolution claims.

We have that figured out. We don't have the how, or why yet. Anyone that claims they do is lying.

It's also nice to see that the OP didn't just post and run, and actually stayed to discuss his trollings.

Oh wait, no he didn't.... sorry.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Try a different browser. Works fine here (and others that responded to it)

OK. Here's why I don't get it. I said this:

Originally Posted by BRussell

The Catholic church has long accepted evolution. Actually this pope's administration, or rather, people close to him, have made statements less accepting of evolution than those before him. Modern creationism is largely a Protestant American phenomenon.

Then you said this:

Originally Posted by Kevin 

So European Christians don't believe God created us?

That seems to equate evolution with "God creating us." But then you say this:

Evolution is about man's evolvement over time. Not really were he came from. The Bible and evolution really don't contradict each other.

I think most Christians accept that man has evolved. Even American Christians. We just believe we know how the "Big Bang" was started, and by whom.

I always always taught the "7 days of creation" story too. But I was also told that each day was a metaphor.

Which is a rejection of the idea that evolution is "God creating us." That's why I can't parse your post: Are you saying evolution is "God creating us," as your first sentence seems to suggest, or that evolution is something different, as the rest of your post seems to suggest?

[Big Mac]

As a prelude to my reply, here's an interesting finding to look at:

Finds Test Human Origins Theory
By James Urquhart
(Emphasis Mine)

The Homo erectus skull in side view, after preparation to remove the sandstone. The small H. erectus skull had to be removed from sandstone. Two hominid fossils discovered in Kenya are challenging a long-held view of human evolution.

The broken upper jaw-bone and intact skull from humanlike creatures, or hominids, are described in Nature. Previously, the hominid Homo habilis was thought to have evolved into the more advanced Homo erectus, which evolved into us. Now, habilis and erectus are now thought to be sister species that overlapped in time.

The new fossil evidence reveals an overlap of about 500,000 years during which Homo habilis and Homo erectus must have co-existed in the Turkana basin area, the region of East Africa where the fossils were unearthed.

"Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis," said co-author Professor Meave Leakey, palaeontologist and co-director of the Koobi Fora Research Project. The jaw bone was attributed to Homo habilis because of its distinctive primitive dental characteristics, and was dated to around 1.44 million years ago. It is the youngest specimen of this species ever found.

The skull was assigned to the species Homo erectus despite being a similar size to that of a habilis skull. Most other erectus skulls found have been considerably larger. But it displayed typical features of erectus such as a gentle ridge called a "keel" running over the top of the jaw joint. Analysis showed the skull to be about 1.55 million years old. The new dates indicate that the two species must have lived side by side.

Sister species

If Homo erectus had evolved from habilis and stayed within the same location then both must have been in direct competition for the same resources. Eventually, one would have out-competed the other. The particularly small Homo erectus find, shown from above with the large skull from Olduvai (Tanzania) to demonstrate the gorilla-like size variation of the species. There may have been a large size difference between the sexes.

"The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long time suggests that they had their own distinct ecological niches, thus avoiding direct competition," Professor Leakey explained. Professor Chris Stringer, head of human origins at London's Natural History Museum, said: "Both were apparently stone tool-makers, but one possibility is that the larger and perhaps more mobile erectus species was an active hunter, while habilis scavenged or caught small prey." It is most likely that both species evolved from a common ancestor.

Other possibilities

But the linear, ancestor-descendent relationship between the two species cannot be ruled out altogether. Fred Spoor, professor of developmental biology at University College London, and co-author of the paper, told the BBC News website: "It's always possible that Homo habilis lived, let's say, 2.5 million years ago and then in another part of Africa, away from the Turkana basin, an isolated population evolved into Homo erectus."

After a sufficient amount of time to allow both species to develop different adaptations and lifestyles, Homo erectus could have then found its way to the Turkana basin. With separate "ecological niches", both species could co-exist without direct competition for resources. "But that is a much more complex proposition," Professor Spoor explained, "the easiest way to interpret these fossils is that there was an ancestral species that gave rise to both of them somewhere between two and three million years ago."

Not so similar

The fossil record indicates that modern humans (Homo sapiens) evolved from Homo erectus. However, to some researchers, the small size of the erectus skull suggests that species may not have been as similar to us as we once thought.

On average, modern humans display a low level of "sexual dimorphism", meaning that males are females do not differ physically as much as they do in other animals. The scientists compared the small skull to a much larger erectus cranium found previously in Tanzania. If the size difference between the two is indicative of the larger one being from a male and the smaller being from a female, it suggests that erectus displayed a high level of sexual dimorphism - similar to that of modern gorillas.

Sexual dimorphism can relate to reproductive strategies and sexual selection. If erectus was very sexually dimorphic it may have had multiple mates at a time. This differs from the more monogamous nature of modern humans, indicating that Homo erectus was not as human-like as once thought.

The researchers dismiss the idea that the small size of the skull could be a result of it belonging to a youngster. "By studying how the skull bones are fused together we discovered it belonged to a fully grown young adult rather than a developing juvenile erectus," said Professor Spoor.

[lpkmckenna]

I hope you're going somewhere interesting with this, 'cause this by itself doesn't say much about evolution.

[Big Mac]

I already highlighted the key parts - I can't help you to improve your reading comprehension skills; I don't feel like spelling it out right now. Read and think critically. Okay, since you're clearly suffering, here's a hint: This discovery refutes a number of key, long-standing claims made by evolutionists concerning the origins of humanity. Habilis, which was thought by evolutionists to be the predecessor to erectus, actually co-existed with erectus; erectus is now seen as much closer to ape than human.

Mainstream science is grudgingly coming closer and closer to refuting the tenets of its cherished belief system, evolutionism.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

This discovery refutes a number of key, long-standing claims made by evolutionists concerning the origins of humanity.

It doesn't refute evolution, it may change the way we have evolved from apes, but it doesn't refute evolution in the least.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It doesn't refute evolution, it may change the way we have evolved from apes, but it doesn't refute evolution in the least.

Re-read the sentence of mine you quoted. I said this discovery refutes long-standing beliefs among scientists concerning human origins. I didn't say this discovery by itself refutes macroevolution, but it does get close to refuting belief in human descent.

In the next paragraph I said that science is coming closer to refuting the tenets of evolution, but I didn't say that this particular discovery accomplishes that completely. It's going to take either a long time or a shift in the paradigm for close-minded advocates of evolutionism to concede that macroevolution is rubbish.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I didn't say this discovery by itself refutes macroevolution, but it does get close to refuting belief in human descent.

No, it doesn't, on the contrary. It may change the way we evolved from apes, but it doesn't refute that we did. As a matter of fact, all of the conclusions in the article are based on this premise.

It doesn't get closer to `refuting evolutionism' or `macroevolution', on the contrary. As time passes, we understand more and more of how it happened. The same goes for these probabilistic number games.

If you want to read `challenging long-held beliefs in human evolution' as a challenge or even evidence against evolution, then it's you who should re-read that sentence (or better: the whole article). This discovery challenges the how and not the why.